Posts Tagged With: resurrection

Back in college, I studied the Gospel of John with Jim Woodroof, an fantastic speaker and an even better man. In that course, we read a book he had written about the Fourth Gospel called Between the Rock and A Hard Place. The basic premise of the book, as I recall, was that Jesus is consistently portrayed in John as one who places people “between a rock and a hard place” so as produce a decision of faith in their life. Jesus desired to bring people to rock solid faith in him but first they had to have reason to believe.

As was discussed in the introduction to John, one of John’s greatest goals with his book was to help people come to believe in Jesus. This is the “gospel of belief,” as our other textbook called John. We see a statement of this goal at the end of our chapter today, in what for many is the purpose statement of this gospel:

Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which aren’t written in this book. But these are written so that you may believe that the Messiah, the son of God is none other than Jesus; and that, with this faith, you may have life in his name. (20:30-31)

Belief, though, is easily squashed by doubt and alternate explanation. As long as one can explain the deeds of Jesus in some other way, faith can be deferred.

My professor’s point was that over and over again we see Jesus doing things that could only be explained by him being divine. He can tell the Samaritan woman details about her love-life. He can heal a man born blind. Jesus walks up and paralysis is gone. Thousands of people eat a full meal from five loaves and two fish. This was the “hard place.” There people stood between the hard place of trying to explain away the inexplicable or the rock solid faith that can come through a belief in Jesus. Either Jesus is divine as he says or there is some naturalistic explanation for what has just happened, but what that could be? Could it be that Jesus is God is the easiest explanation?

I see this dynamic happening three times in John 20.

It all comes to a head for the “other disciple” — who most people think is John — when he runs into the empty tomb and sees the grave cloths all neatly folded up. This can’t be explained away, and it made everything else make sense for him (20:8-9)

Mary sees a man she thinks is the gardener, a stranger to her. But when he can call her by name, she realizes Jesus was more than just a man. (20:16)

Thomas can’t believe that Jesus could be back from the dead. That is until he puts his fingers in Jesus’ wounds and can’t deny the facts. (20:25-28)

The best ending to this post would be these words of Jesus from today’s reading:

Is it because you’ve seen me that you believe? God’s blessing on people who don’t see, and yet believe. (20:29)

I am hearing it more and more. The younger the person I talk to the more likely I am to hear it. I hear it used to encourage doing something great with one’s life, and also to justify immense stupidity. What troubles me is that I am also hearing the same thinking coming from some of the Christians I know. It is not always said outright, but the implications are often there.

You only live once — so we better live it up now.

You only live once — so you better be happy now.

You only live once — so you only get one chance to do it right.

You only live once — so do all you have to do to stay alive.

You only live once — so death is worst of all fates.

The problem, of course, is that it is not true. It is not biblical. It is not congruent with the gospel of Jesus. We live twice. And the second life goes on forever. That’s a pretty big difference! (So would that be YOLT?)

Oddly, in this very religious (though not very loving) Corinthian church, there existed some Christians who also believed you only lived once.

How can some of you say that there is no such thing as resurrection of the dead? (15:12b)

Paul is beside himself. How can a Christian believe that? The entire worldview of Christianity hinges on resurrection. It doesn’t make sense and is a colossal waste of time if there is no resurrection of the dead.

For if the dead aren’t raised, the Messiah wasn’t raised either; and if the Messiah wasn’t raised, your faith is pointless, and you are still in your sins. What’s more, people who have fallen asleep in the Messiah have perished for good. If it’s only for this present life that we have put our hope in the Messiah, we are the most pitiable members of the human race. (15:16-19)

If dead people stay dead, then Jesus was not resurrected. If Jesus was not resurrected, sin was not fully conquered and death was not dealt with at all. There is a force greater than God — death. If these are true, the entire gospel is a farce. The system of beliefs is nonsense. We are living on false hope, and deserve the labels of “ignorant” we sometimes receive. We are missing out and ought to say instead, “Let’s eat and drink, because tomorrow we’re going to die!” (15:32)

A study for “The Resurrection” by Michelangelo

But death is not the end. Read that again, if you need to. That is a core belief. We are headed to death. We cannot live this life forever. Cancer and heart attacks and horrible accidents are a reality of the “decaying” life, as Paul calls it in this chapter. But whatever happens that ends this life is not the end. Do we really believe it? It is fundamental.

I imagine the church at Corinth was not an easy church to lead. Yet, the Apostle Paul went far and beyond to help them become what God would have them be as a church. We likely only have two of the four letters we can tell Paul wrote this church (maybe three if our Second Corinthians is actually two letters combined). We can tell from the way Paul starts many of the sections in First Corinthians that this letter is actually a response to some sort of correspondence from the Corinthian Christians. Next maybe only to Ephesus, Paul spent more time in Corinth during his missionary journeys than anywhere else. As challenging as the Corinthians were to Paul, he dearly loved them and that comes out in these letters.

Paul seems to be combating several issues in these two letters, each letter quite different from the other.

Holy living in an unholy culture: Corinth was home to many temples, not all of which were likely in use at the time of Paul. The most famous of these was the Temple of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love, in which 1000 temple prostitutes once had served. On the north side of the city was a temple to Asclepius, the god of healing. This background of idolatry and sexuality will appear several times in the two letters. This may be Corinth’s most recognized vice. There is a now-archaic English verb, “to corinthianize,” which means to engage in lewd and indecent acts of debauchery, especially unbridled and indecent sexuality. Paul’s instructions will be unequivocal: navigate through a sinful society with purity, abstinence, and consideration for your brothers and sisters in Christ. This point is also what makes many people say 1 Corinthians is especially relevant for today’s world.

Airs of superiority amongst the members and the division that naturally would bring: Wisdom was key to the Greek culture. At least in some people’s minds, one’s value was attached in part to their intellectual development. Education, philosophy and conventional thinking would have been held in high esteem. As we will see early in 1 Corinthians, this attitude was clearly present in the Corinthian church as well. This thinking also seems to have shaped how they thought about the spiritual gifts they had been given by the Spirit. A pecking order of giftedness seems to have been causing a problem, as was their penchant to group off according to which religious teacher they preferred. Unity will be the most recurring point in these letters.

Misunderstandings about the resurrection of the dead: There can be no misunderstandings about this all-important idea fundamental to Christianity, yet it seems the Corinthians had many. Paul will speak to the who, when, how, and what of the resurrection from the dead.

Encouraging the Corinthian Christians to give generously to famine-striken Christians in Jerusalem: Situated at a main commercial nexus point between the Adriatic and Aegean Seas, there would have been a good bit of wealth in the city. Paul will encourage his Greek brothers and sisters to use that wealth to show tangible love for the Jewish brothers and sisters who started this movement they are now a part of.

Having to defend this apostolic authority: Paul’s response to this issue composes most of Second Corinthians. This was an especially big deal as questions of authority would have undermined everything Paul had been working for in Corinth. The emphasis on wisdom in Corinthian culture would have contributed to this as Paul was foreign, educated in non-Greek religion and philosophy, and he did not emphasize the charisma commonplace in Greek cultural leaders. More troubling for Paul were false teachers posing as apostles who had come to Corinth since his departure who were turning the church against him. They painted Paul as opportunistic, greedy for their money, unreliable, and unskilled. Paul responds will great passion and fire. For what it’s worth, Paul’s explanation of why he is competent to be a “minister of reconciliation” has been one of my favor sections of Scripture since first training for the ministry in undergrad.

So much of the Corinthian letters has to do with church life. This may be where we see Paul’s pastoral heart best of all.

Some times, yes, evil wins the day. . . . But let there be no question, God will win the war. When all is said and done, God will vanquish all forces of evil and disorder and disease that stand against him.

Why do I believe that? Where is the proof? Is that only wishful thinking?

The women went to the tomb in the very early morning of the first day of the week, carrying the spices they had prepared. They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, and when they went in they didn’t find the body of the Lord Jesus. As they were at a loss what to make of it all, suddenly two men in shining clothes stood beside them. The women were terrified, and bowed their faces toward the ground. But then men said to them, “Why look for the living with the dead? He isn’t here — he been raised!” (24:1-6a)

The God who conquered sin, death, Satan, and evil that Sunday morning at the Garden Tomb is the same God we worship today. No gangbanger, meth head, anti-government bomber, terrorist, deranged loner with a handgun, social injustice, prejudice, disease, depression, addiction, lack of love, selfishness or anything else will win the last day. God wins. Love wins. New Creation wins.

In every letter Paul gives a grand statement of the gospel, always stated a bit differently for the context of that letter. Chapter 2 is that chapter in Ephesians.

Paul reminds his readers what they were according to the “flesh” alone.

You were dead because of your offenses and sins! . . . We used to do what our flesh and our minds were urging us to do. What was the result? We too were subject to wrath in our natural state, just like everyone else. (2:1b, 3)

So, then, remember this! In human terms — that is, in your “flesh” — you are “Gentiles.” You are the people whom the so-called circumcision refer to as the so-called uncircumcision. . . . Well, once upon a time you were separated from the king. You were detached from the community of Israel. You were foreigners to the covenants which contained the promise. There you were, in the world with no hope and no god! (2:11-12)

Before they came to Christ, the Ephesian church, which must have been largely Gentile, were dead, fleshly, destined for punishment, locked out from the promises and blessings of the Jews, without hope.

Can you remember when the same could have been said about you?

Then . . . because of the great grace of God, not because of anything we had done, lest we boast (2:8-9), we were reborn. This idea of being new birth is very important to Paul at this point. He punctuates that idea twice in this chapter with creation and resurrection language:

He made us alive with the king. . . . He raised us up with him, and made us sit with him — in the heavenly places in King Jesus. (2:5-6)

The point of doing all this was to create, in him, one new human being out of the two [Jews and Gentiles], so making peace. God was reconciling both of us to himself in a single body, though the cross, by killing the enmity in him. (2:15b-16)

With rebirth the Ephesians are not the same person. They died hopeless objects of wrath; they were reborn children of the King. They died alienated Gentiles; they were reborn part of a greater humanity that does not see ethnicity and the hostility that too often comes with such differences. They are no longer defined by their flesh. They are new creations.

Can you remember when you were very aware that the same could be said about you?

The women scurried off quickly away from the tomb, in a mixture of terror and great delight. (28:8)

This is an angel standing before us — a majestic messenger of God that strikes fear in all who see it.

The message is that Jesus has been raised from the dead — the message we long to hear, though it defies logic.

We are running off to tell the disciples Jesus has been resurrected — they will be so excited, if they don’t think we are out of our minds.

That appears to be Jesus up ahead — Hallelujah, but can I trust my eyes?

Rumors are swirling that the resurrection is a hoax we cooked up by stealing the body — that is not the truth, but it is easier to believe and the Jews are buying it.

We have hurried off to Galilee to meet Jesus — how can we help but worship, but wait a minute “Is this real?”

He is sending us out in the world, the hostile world, the one that killed him — he is with us with all authority in heaven and earth, but will they kill us like they killed him?

♦

Faith is not easy. It defies pure logic. It makes you second guess what you are seeing. It doesn’t add up. There are always alternative theories afoot for what you are choosing to believe. That can be terrifying. But if it is true, if it is true . . . there will be great delight!

Paul is confronted by Felix, the Roman governor in Caesarea. Is Paul truly the rabble-rouser the Jews make him out to be? That is a serious charge in peaceful Rome. In response, Paul confesses the following:

It is true that I do worship the God of my ancestors according to the Way which they call a “sect.” I believe everything which is written in the law and the prophets, and I hold to the hope in God, for which they also long, that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. (24:14-15)

What strikes me here (and in almost every other public address either Peter or Paul gave in Acts) is that resurrection is so foundational to the belief-system of the apostles. Key to the gospel is resurrection from the dead. This is mentioned again later in the chapter at 24:21.

I wonder if resurrection is that fundamental to our ways of thinking and talking today. I more often hear forgiveness from the guilt of sin mentioned in our gospel language. That is okay. Of course, forgiveness is important as well, and it was a part of the gospel sermons in Acts too (c.f., Acts 2:38). But not as often as resurrection. If we have downplayed resurrection in favor of forgiveness of guilt from sins, what are we missing? And why have we made this switch? What does this reveal about us?

Paul is a wanted man. Leave him alone in Jerusalem for 15 minutes and he is dead. He is sitting in a Roman jail under suspicions of disturbing the peace. Rome deals swiftly and decisively with people who upset the Pax Romana. In Felix, he is talking to a man who more so wants a bribe than the truth, and Paul has no intentions of paying up. He is headed to Rome, where Caesar’s word is truth, and Caesar has no reason to preserve Paul’s life.

How can Paul maintain such boldness and calm? Paul has already told us:

I hold to the hope in God . . . that there will be a resurrection of the righteous and the unrighteous. (24:15)

What do you think about this?

Blogs are an ideal place for experimental writing, so I hope you will allow me to do that today.

In just about every Bible translated since the King James Version there is a line after 16:8 that says verses 9-20 are not found in the earliest manuscripts. Still, I have always read the chapter as a whole, trusting that the editors of whatever translation I am reading had a good reason for putting vv. 9-20 in there.

Verses 9-20 were probably not written by Mark; there is ample evidence to suggest that. They do show up before AD 150, though, so they are early and maybe still apostolic. Maybe a copyist thought the book was too messy if it ended at 16:8 and added an ending of his own. Maybe someone wanted to add a truncated version of Jesus on the road to Emmaus, the Great Commission and mention of miracles to be done by the apostles. Maybe someone felt we needed to actually hear about Jesus meeting the apostles in Galilee as 16:7 mentioned. Maybe Mark did have an ending and it was lost or destroyed (this section would have been the end of a scroll or codex) and vv. 9-20 are just a copy of the original that was rewritten later. Maybe Mark died or was arrested before he could finish the book. Honestly, I am not that worried about it. It might be wise to refrain from picking up rattlesnakes thinking the Bible authorizes it, just in case.

Today I would like to experiment with ending Mark at 16:8 and seeing what message arises from that decision. Maybe Mark wanted his gospel to end as abruptly as it started in chapter 1, no mention of his birth and now no post-resurrection appearance by Jesus. So, the ending of Mark would be:

They [the women] went out, and fled from the tomb. Trembling and panic had seized them. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid. (16:8)

That seems like a weird ending to the book. We never see the resurrected Jesus; we must simply believe that what the angel says is true. We never see emboldened believers: the apostles are still hiding, and even the women who were at least faithful enough to come to finish the job of anointing the body run away in a mix of awe and terror. Is Jesus alive as the angel said? What will become of this new movement? What more should have been done? These questions are all left unanswered in Mark’s awkward ending.

But maybe that is the point. Maybe Mark, who we have repeatedly seen leave us hanging with forced vows of secrecy and people swimming in puzzlement, wants to leave us with questions. That certainly would fit with the “messianic secret” idea we have seen already. Remember these questions from Mark? We are left answering these questions for ourselves:

Who do people say I am? (8:27)

Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One? (14:61)

Are you the king of the Jews? (15:2)

What shall I do, then, with the one you call the king of the Jews? (Mark 15:12)

More practically, maybe Mark is intending to push us back into his book to decide for ourselves whether we can believe that Jesus really is who he says he is. Some people think Mark was intended to be used as an evangelistic tool and this sort of ending could set up quite a fruitful conversation with a spiritual seeker. Maybe we are supposed to naturally compose the ending we think there should have been — what the women should have done, what the apostles should and will do, what needs to be done now if Jesus really is alive. Moreover, maybe we aren’t just supposed to compose the ending, maybe be are supposed to do that ending we imagine.

I think I like that sort of ending.

As we finish Mark, please take the time to write one sentence summarizing what “big idea” has stayed with you these past three weeks as you have read.